The assessee contended that the disallowance u/s. 14A can fall below the voluntary disallowance made by the assessee suomotu in return of income filed with the Revenue. The assessee has relied on decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Pr. CIT v. UTI Bank Ltd. [2017] 398 ITR 514 and decision of ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Rupee Finance and Management (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2017] 81 taxmann.com 249. Tribunal held that once Tribunal has adjudicated matter in assessee’s favour then merely because disallowance was made in return of income voluntarily under a wrong belief, the assessee cannot resile from its position is not acceptable. The mandate of the 1961 Act is to tax real income and not an income which was never the income chargeable to tax in the hands of the assesseee but was declared under a wrong belief or notion. The mandate of the 1961 Act is to tax real income and tax can only be levied under the authority of law. Thus, if after verifications and following the ratio of law decided by the tribunal in the instant case, if the disallowance falls below the disallowance u/s 14A offered by the assessee in return of income, be it may the Revenue cannot charge tax on income which never was the income of the assessee chargeable to tax within the mandate and provisions of the 1961 Act as the tax can only be levied by the authority of law. The Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT v. Bakelite Hylam Ltd. (1999)237 ITR 392 as well Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Gujarat Gas Co. Ltd. v. Jt. CIT (2000) 111 245 ITR 84 (Guj.)(HC) after considering CBDT circular No. 549 dated 31-10-1989 (1990) 182 ITR (st) 1.  (AY. 2011-12, 2012-13)

(Editorial Note .Refer CIT v. Milton Laminates Ltd (2013) 218 taxman 108 (Mag.)(Guj.) (HC) (Para 5) The Court held that the Assessing Officer is free to give effect to order of Commissioner (Appeals) without restricting income to returned income. Assessing Officer can compute income lower than that returned, Nirmala L. Mehta v. A. Balasubramanian (2004) 269 ITR 1 (Bom.)(HC)  (11)  the court held that, “There cannot be any estoppel against the statute, Article 265 of the Constitution of India in unmistakable terms provides that no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law. Acquiescence cannot take away from a party the relief that he is entitled to where the tax is levied or collected without authority of law”. [Also refer, CIT v. V.MR.P. Firm, Muar (1965) 56 ITR 67 (74).